Data dependencies and execution prerequisites
It is recommended to use Wind wind-mcp-skill to obtain underlying data. Before execution, first check whether there is already a local wind-mcp-skill; if not, prompt the user to install:
# GitHub
npx skills add Wind-Information-Co-Ltd/wind-skills --skill wind-mcp-skill -g -y
# Gitee 镜像（国内）
npx skills add https://gitee.com/wind_info/wind-skills.git --skill wind-mcp-skill -g -y
Skill positioning
This skill is used to interpret changes in company management's guidance for future operations, focusing on answering "what exactly does this upward or downward revision mean, how credible is it, and will the impact remain at the sentiment level or penetrate through to the valuation and logic level." The output focus is not merely translating the guidance text, but clearly explaining the magnitude of the change, changes in caliber, underlying drivers, and the subsequent impact chain.
Execution process
Step 1: Confirm the object of change and the original caliber
First confirm which type of guidance is being changed this time, and what the baseline caliber is. Prioritize clarifying:
- Whether it is revenue, profit, profit margin, cash flow, capital expenditure, or order guidance
- Whether it is full-year guidance, quarterly guidance, or a阶段性 operational outlook
- Whether this is a formal adjustment, or management marginally revising the wording during communication
- Whether the old and new calibers can be directly compared
If the caliber has changed, comparability must be explained first, and then the direction discussed.
Step 2: Measure the magnitude of change and the market expectation gap
View the guidance change in the correct coordinates, focusing on:
- Absolute and relative magnitude of the change
- Whether it is above, in line with, or below the market's original expectations
- Whether it is aggressive, conventional, or conservative compared with the company's historical communication style
- Whether the current valuation has already partially priced in such adjustments
The goal of this step is to judge "whether the change itself is large" and "whether the market has already reacted in advance."
Step 3: Break down the drivers behind the change
Further determine where this guidance change comes from. Common sources include:
- Changes in demand, prices, or order节奏
- Cost, expense, supply chain, or exchange rate disturbances
- Fulfillment or delay of new products, new projects, or new regional expansion
- Changes in management's risk appetite or communication strategy
- One-off items affecting the short-term caliber
Priority should be given to identifying the main drivers, rather than evenly distributing all possible factors.
Step 4: Assess the credibility and sustainability of the guidance
The same upward or downward revision may have completely different quality. Key judgments include:
- Whether management has historically provided stable and credible guidance
- Whether this change is supported by sufficient operational evidence
- Whether it is based on confirmed orders or on forward-looking assumptions
- Which key variables remain fragile and may lead to another revision
Step 5: Map to valuation, expectations, and investment logic
Translate the guidance change from a "caliber change" into "investment implications," answering at least:
- Which part of the market's judgment on growth, profit, or quality will this change
- Whether the valuation anchor needs to be adjusted accordingly
- Which side of the original bullish or bearish logic is strengthened
- Whether this change looks more like confirmation of an inflection point, noise disturbance, or a one-off revision
Step 6: Integrate into a written interpretation of the change
The final output should help users quickly understand “whether this guidance adjustment has substantive significance,” without showing the intermediate collection process or internal drafts.
Output structure
{Stock name} guidance change interpretation ({YYYY-MM-DD})
I. 30-second conclusion
- Direction of change: {raised / lowered / maintained}
- Meaning of change: {one sentence}
- Credibility assessment: {high / medium / low}
- Impact on the thesis: {strengthened / neutral / weakened}
II. Guidance change summary
| Item | Original guidance | New guidance | Magnitude of change | Preliminary interpretation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| {Item 1} | {content} | {content} | {content} | {explanation} |
| {Item 2} | {content} | {content} | {content} | {explanation} |
III. Core reasons behind the change
- Reason 1: {content}
- Reason 2: {content}
- Reason 3: {content}
IV. Why the market will care
- {impact chain 1}
- {impact chain 2}
- {impact chain 3}
V. Credibility and sustainability assessment
- Supporting evidence: {content}
- Uncertainty: {content}
- Risk of another revision: {content}
VI. Follow-up tracking checklist
- {tracking item 1}
- {tracking item 2}
- {tracking item 3}
Quality requirements
- First explain the basis and magnitude of the change, then draw conclusions, and avoid skipping steps.
- A distinction must be made between “changes in wording” and “changes in operating trends.”
- The credibility assessment cannot be omitted, otherwise the interpretation will lose its judgment value.
- If the old and new bases are not comparable, this should be clearly pointed out, and no forced comparison should be made.
- The conclusion should land on investment implications, rather than remaining at the level of management rhetoric.